Hacker News Reader

Comment by breitling | Hacker News Reader

I was thinking the same thing. They have less of an incentive to use protection with this device implanted. Let's wait and see until the STD numbers surface.

Ultimately, what's cheaper? Having a baby or taking care of an STD? Perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs.

View on HN

Taking care of an STD will be cheaper for the individual and the state, without question.

a Baby might grow up, become a professional and be a net win by paying taxes. I don't think that's a possible outcome with STD's.

Or the baby might grow up and be a drug-addict or a deadbeat and leech benefits from the state. Statistically this one is more likely.

I'm not entirely sure about that.

The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication. If these programs target teens and poor people, this demographic would also struggle to pay for those things as well -- and they would need to use them for a more protracted period than 10-18 years.

Also: Birth control might give a false sense of security leading to more casual sex and a surging rate of STDs. That last theory makes STDs noticeably absent from the article.

"The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication."

Without a "think of the children" argument, is that necessarily bad, if poor judgment has consequences? Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes?

My hiking hobby exposes me to some medical risk of lyme disease, skin cancer, ankle and knee damage, but its not like I'm about to stop. Now that you're done yawning about my dangerous lifestyle choices, likewise if casual sex is medically dangerous then ... why exactly should anyone care?

> Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes?

That's absurd. Having unprotected sex would not constitute "poor judgement" if there were no possible negative outcomes.

Of course it will be cheaper. Because the alternative to an STD in this argument is an STD and a baby. (Who may or may not be born with the STD.)

Depends on the STD. Don't forget the baby will (probably) also grow up to be a productive member of society.

Given they are getting pregnant, suggests many of them are already having unprotected sex.

If the STD causes problems conceiving and requires tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in IVF treatments to conceive later in life.

The UK is having this problem, but mostly from women putting off pregnancies until their 30's or 40's.

Ironically this is only a problem in the UK because of universal health care. Here, it's only a problem for individuals. One could make a case how the medical industry would be pushing early IUDs in order cause problems in order to build up the IVF industry. It sounds a little tinfoil hat-ish but truly less ethical things have happened in western medical industry.

Wouldn't it be taking care of an STD or having a baby AND taking care of an STD in many cases?

That depends. If a girl gets pregnant, some have less sex after that...hence potentially reducing the STD rate.

Some also have more sex after that...

Which is statistically more likely? As someone with children...it's the less sex.

If you are female, thank you for your sample size of 1 as evidence of it being statistically more likely. If you are male thank you for your sample size equal to the number of women you have had children with of it being statistically more likely, with the the evidence being presumably that those women had less sex because you had less sex with them. And as you do not specify, must I assume that all women you are using in your samples were of the target demographic 'teenagers'. If not it is hardly representative of a demographic which is usually just discovering sex, probably being fairly secretive about it, and may represent different data than an older demographic. This makes it a very hard section of the population to represent with good data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com